National Security: Judge Denies Detainee's Request To Keep Lawyers
• "A federal judge in Manhattan on Wednesday denied a request by a former Guantánamo detainee to keep two military lawyers who had been representing him now that his case has been transferred to federal court," the New York Times reports. "The detainee, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, faces charges of conspiring in Al Qaeda's 1998 bombings of two American Embassies, in Tanzania and Kenya."
• "Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill., endorsed the controversial proposed maximum-security prison for Illinois, with a snipe at Republican critics and an endorsement of its major job-creation benefits," CongressDailyAM (subscription) reports.
Updated at 10:45 a.m. on Nov. 16.
Conventional wisdom has held for some time now that Muslims in the United States integrate better into society than do Muslims in France, Britain or other European countries, and that's why we haven't had many homegrown terrorist plots. But perhaps in light of recent events, that is just so much self-delusion. Some 20 Somali-Americans -- all young men mostly born here, the FBI says -- have gone to Somalia in the past 18 months and joined Al Shabaab, the Al-Qaeda-affiliated group trying to seize that Horn of Africa country. One of those Somali Americans, Shirwa Ahmed, died in an apparent suicide attack targeting government offices in northern Somalia in October 2008. Najibullah Zazi, an American born in Afghanistan but raised in the United States since the age of 7, was plotting to blow up trains in New York City before he was recently arrested in Colorado. And now Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, an American Muslim born and raised in Virginia, stands accused of shooting to death 13 of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas.
Are we as good at integrating Muslims into U.S. society as we think we are? Or is it that Muslims worldwide are inevitably getting fed up with America's two wars against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a global war on terror that is perceived to be attacking Muslims in about two dozen countries? Or is it that Al Qaeda -- which had connections to Zazi, Al Shabaab and the Somalis, and perhaps through a cleric to Maj. Hasan -- is still the force we need first to be reckoning with?
-- James Kitfield, NationalJournal.com
14 responses: Col. W. Patrick Lang, Michael F. Scheuer, Michael Brenner, James Jay Carafano, James Kitfield, Dov S. Zakheim, Michael F. Scheuer, Ron Marks, Joseph J. Collins, Paul R. Pillar, Brian Michael Jenkins, Michael Brenner, James Jay Carafano, Daniel Byman
The Obama administration wants to keep Afghanistan from becoming a base of operations for terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, and the expected troop buildup there will almost certainly involve a heavy reliance on counterterrorism operations. But recent evidence suggests that terrorist networks have found much safer bases in countries where there isn't a large U.S. military presence, such as Somalia, Yemen and Algeria.
How should the Obama administration broaden its counterterrorism strategy to include these burgeoning terrorist havens? Should it increase the use of Predator drones in these countries? Or the kind of commando raids that killed a key Al Shabaab leader in Somalia recently? Should the president consider lifting the ban on assassinations in order to more freely target terrorist figures in countries where we're not at war? And what are the options the president has for focusing on the "upstream" factors, as his chief counterterrorism adviser has called them, that lead people to commit terrorist acts in the first place?
-- Shane Harris, NationalJournal.com
12 responses: Michael F. Scheuer, Michael Brenner, Wayne White, Michael F. Scheuer, Shane Harris, Dov S. Zakheim, Paul Sullivan, Col. Douglas Macgregor, Daniel Gouré, Joseph J. Collins, Ron Marks, Michael Brenner
The idea of a binding interdependence between China and America as the linchpin of a new global economic and political order has become a trendy one in geopolitical circles. There is much talk, for example, about Zachary Karabell's new book, Superfusion: How China And America Became One Economy And Why The World's Prosperity Depends On It. So, first of all, is the premise of the so-called Chi-America (or Chimerica) thesis a well-grounded one? What is true and not true of this premise? Why not, at least, "Amer-Chi," given that the U.S. remains, by far, a bigger and wealthier economy, and a weightier global political actor?
In any case, how should Washington try to manage the Sino-American relationship -- the political as well as the economic dimension? Given the global rise of China, was President Obama right, for example, recently to postpone a meeting in Washington with the Dalai Lama -- until after a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao? Or did this step express too much deference towards a China that still has a long way to go before rivaling the U.S. in global influence?
-- Paul Starobin, NationalJournal.com
10 responses: Paul Sullivan, Richard Hart Sinnreich, Michael Vlahos, Paul Starobin, Dov S. Zakheim, Ron Marks, Christian Caryl, Michael Vlahos, Michael Brenner, James Mann
The conventional wisdom at the beginning of the year was that Hillary Rodham Clinton might be sidelined by all the strong personalities among President Obama's "team of rivals" and his special envoys to the Middle East and Afghanistan/Pakistan. Some analysts have said that doesn't seem to have happened.
Clinton has taken charge of relations with great powers China and Russia, and is a key player in reinforcing Obama's multilateral approach to international issues, one of the things that the Nobel committee cited in giving him the Peace Prize. People give her credit for giving this administration some spine. And she certainly is getting more resources for the State Department. David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote a piece in the Washington Post in August saying that Clinton is "rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision into a revitalized State Department, one that approaches U.S. allies and rivals in ways that challenge long-held traditions."
But we would like to know what you, the experts, think about Hillary's performance so far, what she has accomplished, and what more she could or should be doing. So what kind of report card do you give Hillary Rodham Clinton so far as secretary of State? Was she a good, or bad, choice as the nation's top diplomat?
-- Patrick B. Pexton, NationalJournal.com
12 responses: Michael F. Scheuer, Sam Worthington, Patrick B. Pexton, Christopher Preble, Michael F. Scheuer, James Jay Carafano, Michael Brenner, Gordon Adams, Ron Marks, Michael Brenner, Joseph J. Collins, James R. Locher III
As the repercussions from the summer's election fraud and its bitter aftermath continue to ripple through Iranian politics, it's become clear that the greatest fear of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his allies in the Revolutionary Guards and among hard-line clerics is a "velvet" people's revolution of the type that swept authoritarian regimes from power in Georgia with the 2003 "Rose Revolution," and in Ukraine with the "Orange Revolution" in 2004-2005.
Are those fears well-founded? Given a level of popular opposition to the theocratic regime that surprised many outside observers, especially on the part of the country's urban youth, is there a viable prospect that the regime can be swept from power by a people's revolution? Given the sensitivity and danger of any domestic group being associated with the "Great Satan," are there proactive and helpful steps -- secret or otherwise -- that the United States should take to improve the chances of a "velvet revolution"? What aspects of the velvet revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia might apply to Iran? Finally, is there likely any truth to Iranian charges that the United States or other outside players were behind the unrest surrounding the elections?
-- James Kitfield, NationalJournal.com
8 responses: Paul R. Pillar, James Kitfield, Patrick Clawson, Daniel Serwer, Ron Marks, James Jay Carafano, Michael Brenner, Daniel Byman
The announcement that President Obama had received the Nobel Peace Prize was met with jaws dropping around the world. Does Obama's Nobel win give "momentum" -- to use the committee chairman's word -- to his efforts on such fronts as Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and nuclear disarmament? Or does the award raise expectations, already high, to a destructive degree? Will the prize end up being more of an embarrassment than an asset if Obama cannot deliver on the extraordinary goals that the Nobel committee believes he is pursuing? And is the award unjustified, given that Obama has sent more combat troops into Afghanistan and is contemplating sending more; that he has embraced the use of remote drones to kill terrorist suspects in Pakistan, a country with which we're not at war; and that he intends to indefinitely detain some terrorist suspects without charge?
-- Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., NationalJournal.com
13 responses: Michael Brenner, Stewart Verdery, James Jay Carafano, Rachel Kleinfeld, Eric Farnsworth, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Dov S. Zakheim, Michael F. Scheuer, Eric Farnsworth, James Jay Carafano, Ron Marks, Kellie A. Meiman
It's March 1, 2010, and you're the secretary of Defense. Sanctions, negotiations and all other forms of diplomacy have failed to get Iran to renounce its nuclear program. The president has directed you and the chairman of the joint chiefs to draw up a plan for striking at Qum and Iran's many other nuclear facilities within the next 90 days. How would you advise that they be taken out, and in such a way that they can't come back online, at least not for several years? What would such a strike look like? Bunker busters? Cyber attacks? Cruise missiles and fighter bombers? Would we keep Israel out of it? How much air-, sea- and manpower would we need in place to keep the entire region from exploding? And how would we prepare for the aftermath?
Or would you advise against the mission entirely and resign in protest rather than execute it -- perhaps telling the president that such a strike would likely fail, be counterproductive to other U.S. goals in the region, and push the Iranians into a faster nuclear arms race?
-- Shane Harris, NationalJournal.com
5 responses: Shane Harris, Michael Brenner, James Jay Carafano, Joseph J. Collins, Wayne White
"It is past time to stop talking about starting negotiations, and time to move forward," a plainly impatient President Obama declared before convening a closed-door meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City on Sept. 22 with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas. OK, but now what? The Arab and Israeli press, in equal measure, derided the "summit" get-together, on the sidelines of a United Nations confab, as little more than a photo-op, with Abbas also drawing flak from Hamas for attending the meeting without first getting an advance agreement from Netanyahu's government to freeze all settlements construction.
As the clock ticks, is there any substantive action that Obama can and should take -- something beyond mere words -- to get these talks going, and in particular, anything to get Netanyahu to agree to a total freeze on growth in settlements? Would prospects for a deal be better served if the rickety Netanyahu government fell? Should the White House also be talking to Hamas? And just how dire are the consequences of a complete derailing of this diplomatic track -- does the world really collapse if the stalemate continues, however much Obama's prestige may suffer?
-- Paul Starobin, NationalJournal.com
9 responses: Col. W. Patrick Lang, Michael Brenner, Paul Starobin, Wayne White, Michael Brenner, Dov S. Zakheim, Christian Caryl, Kori Schake, Col. W. Patrick Lang
In announcing plans to abandon the Bush administration's missile defense system in Eastern Europe, President Obama said that his alternative is more flexible and better tailored to the nature of regional threats. Specifically, Obama says that the Navy's Aegis theater missile system, which he favors, could be put into use earlier than the Bush system and is better equipped to defend against Iran's short- and medium-range missile capabilities. The system also has the added benefit of not making the Russians more paranoid at a time when the administration wants Moscow's cooperation in curbing Iran's nuclear program and reducing American and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals. Critics charge that Obama is appeasing an authoritarian Russia at the expense of our democratic allies in Eastern Europe and leaving the United States and NATO allies more vulnerable to Iran's missiles. Which side is closer to the truth?
-- James Kitfield, NationalJournal.com
12 responses: Michael Brenner, Henry D. Sokolski, Richard Hart Sinnreich, Daniel Byman, Andrew Bacevich, Paul R. Pillar, Michael F. Scheuer, James Kitfield, Ron Marks, Michael Brenner, Joseph Cirincione, Baker Spring
Eight years ago, as the grounds of the World Trade Center and a chunk of the Pentagon lay smoldering, it was an easy if grim guess that the American homeland, sooner or later, would be attacked again by jihadist terrorists. But at this point, no such attack has occurred, and the question ripe for debate is why. Razor-sharp U.S. intelligence? The bringing of the fight to the "home turf" of the terrorists in Afghanistan and the tribal borderlands of Pakistan? The emergence of Iraq as a more convenient place to kill Americans than America itself? A calculated decision by the terrorists not to wage a second wave of assaults? Sheer luck?
And what can and should be done, at home and abroad, to make sure that no second attack occurs, ever?
-- Patrick B. Pexton, NationalJournal.com
9 responses: Joseph J. Collins, Steven Metz, Patrick B. Pexton, Michael Vlahos, Michael F. Scheuer, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., James Jay Carafano, Ron Marks, Michael Brenner
